SCHOOL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: INTERNATIONAL PRACTICESrmsaindia.gov.in/administrator/components/com_pdf/pdf/4a0ff... · School Performance Management: International Practices

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT:INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES

December 2013

RMSA – TECHNICAL COOPERATION AGENCY

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES

December 2013

The RMSA Technical Cooperation Agency is funded by the UK Department of International Development (DFID)

School Performance Management: International Practices RMSA TCA

December 2013 1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2

2. Part One: What people usually look for when managing school performance? ........................ 4

2.1. Bermuda .................................................................................................................... 4

2.2. Canada ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.3. Canada ‐ British Columbia ............................................................................................ 4

2.4. Canada ‐ Ontario ......................................................................................................... 5

2.5. Cayman Islands ........................................................................................................... 5

2.6. China (Hong Kong)....................................................................................................... 5

2.7. Jamaica ...................................................................................................................... 6

2.8. Netherlands ................................................................................................................ 6

2.9. New Zealand ............................................................................................................... 6

2.10. Scotland ................................................................................................................. 6

2.11. South Africa ............................................................................................................ 7

2.12. United Arab Emirates ............................................................................................... 7

2.13. United Kingdom (England and overseas) .................................................................... 7

2.14. United States (and overseas) .................................................................................... 8

2.15. Comparing jurisdictions that conduct on‐site inspections ............................................ 8

3. Part Two: Answering the key questions by evaluating performance ...................................... 12

4. Part Three: A recommended Next Practice for empowering schools ..................................... 15

Appendix: Examples from the Dubai Schools Inspection Bureau Inspection Handbook, 2013‐14 ....................................................................................................................................... 18

References....................................................................................................................... 20


December 2013 2

1. Introduction

This brief essay reviews the different ways school performance is managed in a sample of

jurisdictions around the world. It is important to consider that international policies

governing school performance may not be based on visits to school for inspection,

monitoring or review. In some places only standardised external tests are used to generate

data that forms the basis for judging school performance. Using test results as a method of

school performance management is very common, likely because results are obtainable at a

very low cost and satisfy simple notions of 'accountability' and 'performance management.'

In some jurisdictions, the sole indicator of school performance is the local testing of

students' knowledge and skills across a narrow range of subjects; in others, the system‐wide

results from PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS are the sole indicator of school performance. These are

usually not shared with individual schools and thus have little effect upon them. Secondly,

one must bear in mind that some jurisdictions conduct teacher and/or principal

performance management using set criteria; school performance management may not be

done. These first two approaches are common in the United States and Canada, where the

prevailing belief is that it is more effective to manage individual performance than that of

whole schools. These approaches to school performance management are taken for reasons

of cost; they are only partly effective for understanding how well schools are performing.

Truly effective school performance management requires periodic, even frequent visits to

schools by experienced educators who bring expertise about teaching and leadership.

School visits may be called 'inspections' or 'quality reviews' or 'performance monitoring' but

their purposes are the same: to establish and/or verify the quality of education being

provided to students and to ascertain the nature of the school's outcomes. School

performance is best managed by asking a series of questions that are answered empirically

and on site. The most important questions to ask are listed below. Answers are best arrived

at by employing five basic methods of social enquiry: unobtrusive observation of school

activities; opinion surveys of students, parents, teachers and leaders; interviews both formal

and spontaneous; quantitative data analysis and, qualitative document analysis. When these DAT


December 2013 3

methods are applied to schools, judgements can be made about quality using a variety of

adjectives that carry meaning for a broad, general audience, including the four main

stakeholders listed above. The overall effect of such processes is that jurisdictions gain an

accurate and detailed understanding of how well schools are performing.

What follows in Part One is not an exhaustive study of all school performance management

approaches, but focuses on the most common questions asked when evaluating the quality

of school performance. Part Two includes a review and discussion of the evaluation

categories commonly used. Part Three concludes the essay with recommendations for the

important questions to be asked and the way the answers can be evaluated by school

performance authorities in a state or a country. An example of the quality indicators used in

Dubai, UAE is appended as a benchmark of effective school performance management as of

December, 2013.

DRAFT


December 2013 4

2. Part One: What people usually look for when managingschool performance?

2.1. Bermuda In Bermuda, the office of Educational Standards and Accountability has standards for

teaching and school leadership, as laid out in two separate documents dated 2010. These

documents provide teachers and leaders with aspirational standards of practice with respect

to ethics, planning, curriculum knowledge, cultural relevance, etc. The standards are not

linked to levels of quality and there is no inspection of schools to ensure that the standards

are being met. They are established as official government documents that are available to

all stakeholders. The "accountability" aspect of Bermuda's school performance management

strategy is not evident in their published documents.

2.2. Canada The vast majority of schools in Canada come under the authority of the governments of the

ten provinces and three territories and are government funded. Provincial ministries of

education (MoEs) also monitor the private independent schools, including those established

along religious principles. A non‐governmental body known as Canadian Accredited

Independent Schools (CAIS) monitors about 90 private schools in Canada and Canadian

schools located overseas. The CAIS uses the school performance standards of a similar body,

NAIS (see below) in the United States. The process of accreditation is not evaluative in the

sense that the quality of provision and outcomes are not judged. Rather, the provision is

evaluated as sufficient or insufficient for meeting the school's mission. The accreditation

process is on site, but functions as a gate‐keeping tool to determine which schools may

become members of the CAIS.

2.3. Canada ‐ British Columbia Independent schools in the Canadian province of British Columbia are subject to external

evaluation and inspection, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with MoE legislation as

laid out in the Educational Standards Order. 'Evaluations' (inspections) do not truly evaluate

the quality of provision or outcomes at the schools. Inspectors of independent schools must

decide only if schools are compliant (or not) with a lengthy list of requirements for school

DRAFT


December 2013 5

policies and procedures. Government funded schools in British Columbia are not inspected.

2.4. Canada ‐ Ontario In Canada's most populous province, the Ontario College of Teachers, like Bermuda, has

established a set of professional practices for all members. Membership in the College is a

prerequisite for teaching in government‐funded schools. The Ontario Principal's Council has

established comparable standards for school leaders, who likewise must be members of the

Council to be appointed as school principals. Both teachers and principals are subject to

performance appraisal every second year. These appraisals are conducted using a complex

set of indicators, and performance is evaluated as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The

Ontario MoE conducts inspections of private schools only. These are done through the Field

Services Branch, which issues a Private School Inspection Report to each school. The reports

are comprised of check lists about policies and procedures that the MoE requires schools to

follow. There are no judgements made about the quality of provision or outcomes in the

private schools of Ontario, or schools overseas that offer the Ontario Secondary School

Diploma.

2.5. Cayman Islands The Cayman Islands Government established a school inspectorate in 1996, later renamed

the Educational Standards Assessment Unit (ESAU). Using a framework derived from the

OfStEd model (see UK below), all schools in the country are inspected, judgements made

and reports published annually. In this small country of about 50,000 people many schools

were established by church groups and operate with religious principles as part of their

mission. The ESAU evaluates school performance across a range of quality indicators using a

four‐point scale that is similar to that used by OfStEd.

2.6. China (Hong Kong) In Hong Kong the Quality Assurance Division of the Education Bureau established fourteen

school performance areas in 2002, comprised of 29 indicators. These were simplified in 2008

to eight performance areas with 23 indicators. All schools in Hong Kong are inspected

annually and the External School Review reports are shared by individual schools upon

request. School inspections are based on four broad domains covering students (twice),

DRAFT


December 2013 6

teachers and leaders. Performance in these domains are evaluated using a range of

adjectives as chosen by the authors of the inspection reports.

2.7. Jamaica Early in 2008 Jamaica established a National Inspection Agency and a framework for

inspecting the country's schools. This body is now known as the National Education

Inspectorate. In 2011‐12 a revised framework was applied to about 200 schools in a baseline

study of school quality. The framework provides for the evaluation of school performance

using eight indicators of quality at five levels of quality.

2.8. Netherlands In the Netherlands a risk management model of school performance management has been

applied to school performance since 2007. Basic indicators are monitored by the

Inspectorate and any indication of less than good provision or outcomes triggers on‐site

inspection. For example, accounting irregularities, complaints from parents or poor exam

results are considered risks indicative of schools performing at less than a good level.

2.9. New Zealand The government of New Zealand established the Education Review Office in 1989 to monitor

school performance. All schools are inspected and reports are published by the schools. The

New Zealand framework for school inspection asks six key questions and as in Hong Kong,

they are answered using a range of adjectives as chosen by the authors of the inspection

reports.

2.10. Scotland In Scotland a sampling strategy has been used since 2011 to inspect about 240 schools each

year. Evaluations are made about the quality of leadership, specifically the capacity of

leaders to improve their schools. Education Scotland uses a range of quality indicators that is

slightly narrower than that of OfStEd in England.

DRAFT


December 2013 7

2.11. South Africa In 2001 the Republic of South Africa established the National Policy on Whole‐School

Evaluation. This represented a shift away from inspection toward a framework that

facilitated self‐evaluation and external evaluation of school performance. Schools are

required to self‐evaluate their performance and submit reports to the state MoE, but are

also monitored by visitors

2.12. United Arab Emirates The emirate of Dubai established an inspectorate in 2008. In Dubai about two‐thirds of

schools are privately owned and about one third are government funded. Only the private

schools are inspected by the Government of Dubai through the Dubai Schools Inspection

Bureau. All schools are inspected annually using a framework of quality indicators originally

derived from the OfStEd model and modified to suit the local context. The emirate of Abu

Dhabi followed the lead of Dubai and established Irtiqa'a, or improvement, in 2011. At

present the Abu Dhabi Education Council has contracted out school inspection to two British

companies that use a framework of eight performance standards. The other emirates of the

UAE also contract their inspections to British companies using the BSO frameworks (see

below).

2.13. United Kingdom (England and overseas) In 1992 the Conservative government of Great Britain established the Office of Standards in

Education (OfStEd), which represented a renaissance for school inspections in England.

OfStEd inspects the full range of educational institutions, from nurseries up to tertiary level.

Several editions of their school performance framework have been used since 1992 and the

most recent version includes fewer quality indicators than earlier ones. The evaluative

categories have been made more stringent, as the former 'satisfactory' judgement has been

replaced by 'needs improvement.' The Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) in the UK has

a mandate to inspect schools that are privately funded, including those based upon religious

principles. Similarly, Bridge Schools Inspectorate has authority to inspect Christian and

Muslim schools. Both ISI and Bridge apply a simplified framework during on‐site inspections.

British Schools Overseas (BSO) conducts inspections around the world, contracted through

the Council for British Teaching (CfBT). The framework used is similar to the OfStEd

DRAFT


December 2013 8

framework, both in terms of questions asked and qualitative judgements made. Overseas

BSO inspections have taken place in Kuwait, Malaysia and Singapore, among other countries.

2.14. United States (and overseas) Independent schools in the USA can be accredited by one of six regional bodies as well as

the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS). As noted above regarding CAIS

policy, the NAIS process of accreditation is not evaluative in the sense that the quality of

provision and outcomes are not judged using an ordinal framework. The NAIS approach uses

a simple 'sufficient or insufficient' threshold to determine whether or not schools are

accredited. The NAIS Model Core Standards of 2007 explicitly mention students'

development, safety, school leadership and the available human and material resources. The

regional accrediting bodies in the USA are geographically determined as North‐East, Middle

States, Central, Southern, South‐West and North‐West. These bodies also accredit US

curriculum schools overseas (through CITA), so that graduates can gain admission to colleges

and universities in the US. Across all accrediting bodies the on‐site inspections do not

generate evaluative judgements of school performance. Government funded schools in the

United States are not inspected.

2.15. Comparing jurisdictions that conduct on‐site inspections There is broad, but not full consensus on the important questions that need to be asked

about school provision and the development of students both academically and personally.

The widely agreed questions about school performance include:

1. How well students are attaining the expected and appropriate learning outcomes of

the curriculum;

2. How much progress students are making, as measured against their different starting

points;

3. What learning skills students are developing, appropriate to their ages;

4. How well students are developing appropriate personal attitudes and social skills;

5. How well teachers teach;

6. How well teachers and schools assess learning and use the assessment information

to help students make further progress;

DRAFT


December 2013 9

8. How healthy, safe and supportive school environments are;

9. How effective school leaders are;

10. How well the school's facilities and resources support leaders, teachers and students

in their work.

For the purposes of comparison, we will call these ten questions 'Key Questions.' The first

four key questions are about the outcomes for students and the last six are about the

provision by the school. These ten questions are sometimes asked in combination (for

example, questions about students' attainment and progress) or separately (for example,

questions about the written curriculum and how it is delivered to students). Some questions

are more highly developed than others. For example, questions about the support of

students may or may not explicitly mention those with special educational needs. Other

questions that are asked about school performance include those explicitly about parental

involvement, governance, fiscal management and the tracking of graduates through tertiary

education. Table 1 below shows the common questions across different jurisdictions, as well

as Edmonds' (1981) classic 'five factor model' of school effectiveness.

7. How well the curriculum matches students' existing knowledge and skills;

DRAFT


December 2013 10

Table 1: A comparison of key questions asked in school performance frameworks

Location

↓

Students'

attainmen

t of

curricula?

Stud

ents'

progr

ess?

Studen

ts'

learnin

g

skills?

Students'

social

developm

ent?

Teachi

ng

quality

?

Assessm

ent of

learning?

Curricul

um

quality?

Health

,

safety

and

suppo

rt?

Leadership

&

Managem

ent?

Facilities

, staffing

&

resource

s?

Abu

Dhabi

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bermuda Yes Yes

Canada

CAIS

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Cayman Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dubai Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hong

Kong

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Jamaica Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Netherla

nds

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

New

Zealand

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Scotland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

South

Africa

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

UK ‐

Ofsted

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

UK ‐ ISI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

UK ‐ BSO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

DRAFT


December 2013 11

USA ‐

NAIS

Yes Yes Yes Yes

'Five

Factors'

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Key

Question

s shared:

13

include

Students'

attainmen

t

9

inclu

de

Stud

ents'

progr

ess

7

include

Studen

ts'

learnin

g skills

11

include

Students'

social

developm

ent

11

includ

e

Teachi

ng

quality

6

include

Assessm

ent of

learning

11

include

Curricul

um

Quality

15

includ

e

Health

,

safety

and

suppo

rt

14

include

Leadership

&

Managem

ent

8

include

Facilities

,

staffing,

resource

s

The table above shows that some key questions are more common than others. The most

commonly asked questions are those that are easiest to provide and measure. For example,

providing a safe and healthy school does not require high levels of expertise but rather high

levels of care. Measuring students' attainment is easily done through testing. Conversely,

judging the quality of students' progress is much more difficult and yet more important to

the development of each student. Similarly, understanding how effectively schools use

assessment information to modify the curriculum and teaching requires high levels of

expertise.

DRAFT


December 2013 12

3. Part Two: Answering the key questions by evaluating performance

With respect to evaluative categories, we see a range of practices across different

jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions answer these (and other) key questions about school

performance by setting qualitative categories. They are applied to each question to evaluate

school performance, and often to evaluate a school's overall performance. Words such as

'outstanding,' 'good' and 'acceptable' are commonly found in the documents governing

school performance, as are phrases like 'needs improvement,' 'very unsatisfactory' or 'needs

very urgent support.' It is important to bear in mind that such categories or labels are

constructs that have been derived from outside the education profession. The number of

evaluative categories applied to school performance ranges from eight in Abu Dhabi, UAE to

just two in Ontario's performance appraisal framework. More commonly, four categories of

performance or quality are used. For example, Ofsted (and others) in the UK, ESAU in the

Cayman Islands, DISB in Dubai and the Education Bureau of Hong Kong use four categories

to evaluate school performance. All systems of evaluation distinguish between satisfactory

and unsatisfactory performance. The great majority add a level of quality above satisfactory,

usually given as 'good,' and then a superlative level known as 'very good' or 'outstanding' or

'excellent' performance.

In the context of emerging school assessments, it is not necessary to include the superlative

level, as it is the most unreliable level and often creates conflict between stakeholders.

There are two important distinctions to be made when evaluating the different aspects of

school provision. First, distinguishing between competence and incompetence. This

distinction is usually made in terms of 'satisfactory / unsatisfactory' or 'acceptable /

unacceptable.' This basic distinction is absolutely necessary and must be made in all schools

without exception. Secondly, distinguishing between competence and something that is

better than merely competent. This distinction is a degree of quality better than competent

/ satisfactory / acceptable. The degree of difference is not a numerical order nor an interval.

It refers to qualities that are worth sharing, copying or modelling after. This is almost always

referred to as 'good' performance. The suggested evaluation model is a very simple triage

that is easily understood by every stakeholder and makes sense to the general public:

DRAFT


December 2013 13

Unsatisfactory ‐ Satisfactory ‐ Good

This simple triage is found in the three basic necessities of everyday life: food, clothing and

shelter. For example, if we are incompetent at cooking dinner, we rely upon someone who is

competent to cook dinner. If one is good at cooking dinner, others may ask for the recipe so

they can copy it later. When it comes to clothing, most of us are incompetent at making

clothes, so we rely on others to make them for us. A few people are competent and make

their own clothes. Those who are good at it make clothes for others, which are invariably

copied by someone else. Last, the necessity of shelter. Again, most of us are not competent

to build the places we live in so we rely on others to build them. A few people can and do

build their own homes. Those who are good builders earn their livings by building homes for

the rest of us. As with food and clothing, good plans and methods for building homes are

copied all the time. The salient point is not the proportions of people performing at each of

these three levels; rather, it is to recognise that the triage approach to evaluating school

performance matches very well with the everyday experiences of working people around

the world. Yes, finer distinctions can be made, but the value added in making them is

quickly superseded by the time and cost involved and the problems that usually arise. A

triage model is one that very few people will disagree with. Using this model, the first

priority would be to identify unsatisfactory provision and outcomes so that action can be

taken to improve them to satisfactory levels. The second priority would be to acknowledge

satisfactory provision and outcomes and encourage stakeholders to improve them to good.

Third, good provision and outcomes would be acknowledged and shared within the schools,

districts and states to assist others in their improvement efforts. Table 2 below compares

how different authorities evaluate school performance.

DRAFT


December 2013 14

Table 2: A comparison of the evaluative categories used in different jurisdictions

Location

↓

Better than competent performance

Competent performance

Less than competent performance

Abu Dhabi Very good ++ Good Satisfactory + Unsatisfactory +

Bermuda

Canada CAIS Sufficient Insufficient

Canada ‐ BC Compliant

Canada ‐ Ontario Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Cayman Very good Good Adequate Unsatisfactory

Dubai Outstanding Good Acceptable Unsatisfactory

Hong Kong Excellent Good Acceptable Unsatisfactory

Jamaica Exceptionally high Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory +

Netherlands Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

New Zealand A variety of adjectives are used to answer the key questions.

Scotland Very Good+ Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory +

Singapore

South Africa A variety of adjectives are used to answer the key questions.

UK (England)

OfStEd

Outstanding Good Requires improvement

Inadequate

UK ‐ ISI Excellent Good Sound Unsatisfactory

UK ‐ Bridge A variety of adjectives are used to answer the key questions.

UK ‐ BSO Outstanding Good Satisfactory Inadequate

USA ‐ NAIS Sufficient Insufficient

*Note that the above table does not include all the jurisdictions listed in Table 1.

**In Table 2 the plus (+) sign indicates that additional categories are used

DRAFT


December 2013 15

4. Part Three: A recommended Next Practice for empoweringschools

There is much to learn from international practices of school performance management.

Over the past two decades there has been enormous growth in this field across the world,

with a concomitant increase in available literature. There is broad consensus on the

important questions that need to be asked about school provision and the development of

students both academically and personally. Again, these include:

How well students are attaining the expected and appropriate learning outcomes of

the curriculum;

How much progress students are making against their different starting points; (*)

What learning skills students are developing and by what ages; (**)

How well students are developing appropriate personal attitudes and social skills;

How well teachers teach; (*)

How well teachers and schools assess learning and use the information to help

students; (**)

How well the curriculum matches students' existing knowledge and skills;

How safe and healthy school environments are; (*)

How effective school leaders are; (*)

How well school facilities and resources support leaders, teachers and students in

their work. (**)

These ten questions about provision and outcomes (grouped in reverse order), each give rise

to more specific questions. For example, when we ask how well teachers teach, we might

then ask: how well they know their subjects; what the quality of their relations with

students is; how effectively they use lesson time; how effectively they deploy resources;

and, if their strategies engage students at their levels of learning. In this example, one

question about teaching quickly raises five more. Similarly, the ten questions above could

easily become fifty or more important questions about school performance. Inspection

reports on school performance will frequently contain multiple judgements on the same

question, asked about different age groups in schools. The result may be close to 100

DRAFT


December 2013 16

judgements made about school performance. Such a scale may be too large for monitoring

school performance, for example, in a country with the size and diversity of India. In the

context of Indian schools, the four qualities noted with (*) above are indispensable: safe and

healthy schools; students' academic progress; teaching quality; and, leadership. It is these

four qualities that form the basis for questions that must be asked of every school and then

answered convincingly. The rationale for this 'four quality' recommendation is simple:

• learning happens only when students are safe and healthy;

• students' continual progress is more important than mere attainment of curriculum

standards;

• the 'teacher effect' upon learning outcomes is greater than the 'school effect;' and,

• there are no good schools without good leaders.

Ideally, more qualities would be evaluated to gain a deeper understanding of school

performance. For example, the three qualities noted (**) above could be part of an 'Initial

Quality Inspection' framework, given that: learning skills are an important outcome;

assessment information is rarely used effectively; and, resource shortages are common in

some parts of India.

School inspections over the past 20 years have been conducted almost exclusively by career

educators, specifically teachers and principals who were retired, on leave or secondment to

work as inspectors. In the UK, additional lay inspectors have been deployed who have no

experience as teachers or principals. In almost all cases, the frameworks for enquiry and the

methods of inspection have developed outside of the formal social sciences. Specifically,

questions of validity in the construction of school performance indicators have not been

fully addressed. For example, OfStEd's four categories of school performance (outstanding,

good, requires improvement, inadequate) carry both these names and the numerical values

4,3,2 and 1. Similar combinations of names and numbers are used in South Africa's Whole

School Evaluation and in Hong Kong's Quality Assurance document. In Ontario, Canada

teaching is evaluated simply as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Evaluative scales are

clearly arbitrary, and are complicated by the use of numbers. This confusion of nominal

(names) data with ordinal and interval data has led to the common practice (or malpractice)

of inspectors 'averaging' the various aspects of school performance to arrive at final

judgements. When applied to a set of judgements about teaching, inspectors may then

DRAFT


December 2013 17

overlook the most common aspects of teaching in a school and reduce them to a simple

word such as 'satisfactory.' The realities of what takes place in classrooms are not so easily

reduced. Similarly, methods of inspection have not addressed the fundamental skills needed

for robust sociological enquiry, such as interview scheduling, survey construction,

unobtrusive observation skills and data and document analysis skills and, bridging all of

these skills, inter‐rater reliability.

A Next Practice 'Initial Quality Inspection' framework for evaluating school performance can

be informed by the work of the many international school inspectorates, but should follow

the rigour of the social sciences as well. By doing so, a 'Initial Quality Inspection' framework

would leap ahead of the others in terms of both validity and reliability. Using four to seven

quality indicators across three degrees of quality, a framework for school performance could

be developed that is understood by all stakeholders and most easily translated into the

different languages used across the country. The outcomes would likely include a more

accurate understanding of how the schools of the country are performing and, most

importantly, a nation‐wide conversation about school quality that allows everyone to use

the same terms of reference. In the long term, the children of the country could only benefit

from such developments.

DRAFT


December 2013 18

Appendix: Examples from the Dubai Schools Inspection Bureau Inspection Handbook, 2013‐14

A. Example of the key questions asked about school performance:

School inspections are structured around seven key questions:

1. How good are the students' attainment, progress and learning skills?

2. How good is the students' personal and social development?

3. How good are the teaching and assessment?

4. How well does the curriculum meet the educational needs of all students?

5. How well does the school protect and support students?

6. How good are the leadership and management of the school?

7. How well does the school perform overall?

DRAFT


December 2013 19

B: Example of a quality indicator about students' progress: Progress

Key aspects of students' academic progress:

• Progress against starting points and over time• Progress in lessons• Progress by different groups of students

Brief illustrative descriptions

Outstanding Good Acceptable Unsatisfactory

Assessment information indicates that most students make better than expected progress in relation to appropriate starting points.

Assessment informationindicates that the majority of students make better than expected progress in relation to appropriate starting points.

Assessment information indicates that most students make the expected progress in relation to appropriate starting points.

Assessment informationindicates that less than three‐quarters of the students make the expected progress fromappropriate starting points.

In lessons, most students make better than expected progress as measured against appropriate learning objectives.

In lessons, the majority of students make betterthan expected progress as measured against appropriate learning objectives.

In lessons, most students make expected progress as measured against appropriate learning objectives.

In lessons, not enough students make sufficientprogress as measured against appropriate learning objectives.

There is little difference in progress between groups of students.

Students make similar progress, but there maybe a few minor disparities between groups.

Students make expected progress, but there is some unevenness between groups.

At least one significant group of students does not make acceptable progress.

DRAFT


December 2013 20

References

Abu Dhabi Education Council (2012). Irtiqaa framework for the inspection of private

schools in the emirate of Abu Dhabi. http://www.adec.ac.ae Accessed on 12 December

2013.

Bermuda Ministry of Education (2010), Bermuda standards for accomplished

teaching. http://www.moed.bm/standards/default.aspx Accessed on 17 December 2013.

Bridge Schools Inspectorate (2009), Framework for inspections.

http://www.bridgeschoolsinspectorate.co.uk/inspection_documents Accessed on 13

December 2013.

Cayman Islands Government Educational Standards and Assessment Unit.

http://www.gov.ky/portal/page?_pageid=1142,1593490&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Accessed on 15 December 2013.

C.D. Howe Institute (2003) Commentary, 188. "Reframing education: how to create

effective schools. http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/commentary_188.pdf Accessed on 18

December 2013.

Edmonds, R.R. (1981), Making public schools effective. Social Policy, 12. 56‐60.

Education Bureau, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (China)

(2008), Performance Indicators for Hong Kong Schools. http://www.edb.gov.hk/pi Accessed

on 17 December 2013.

Education Review Office (New Zealand) (2011) Evaluation indicators for school

reviews. http://www.ero.govt.nz/Early‐Childhood‐School‐Reports/School‐

Reports/(offset)/10? Accessed on 19 December 2013.

Education Scotland (2011), Arrangements for inspecting schools in Scotland.

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/resources/a/genericresource_tcm4684006.asp


Dutch Inspectorate of Education (2009) Risk‐based inspection as of 2009.

http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/english Accessed on 17 December 2013.

Government of the Hong Kong SAR (2008), Performance indicators for Hong Kong

schools. http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/sch‐admin/sch‐quality‐assurance/about‐sch‐quality‐

assurance/index.html Accessed on 16 December 2013.

DRAFT


December 2013 21

Independent Schools Inspectorate (2010), Handbook for the inspection of schools.

Knowledge and Human Development Authority, Government of Dubai (2013). DSIB

inspection handbook, 2013‐14. http://www.khda.gov.ae/En/Reports/Publications.aspx


Office of Standards in Education (United Kingdom) (2013). School inspection

handbook.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/school‐inspection‐handbook Accessed on 14

December 2013.

Joseph, Aleesha Mary. School inspection system (October 28, 2013). Centre for Civil

Society, Researching Reality Internship, June 2012. Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2346337 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2346337 Accessed on

17 December 2013.

National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) (2007). Model core standards.

http://www.nais.org/Articles/Pages/NAIS‐Commission‐on‐Accreditation‐Criteria‐for‐

Effective‐Independent‐School‐Accreditation.aspx Accessed on 13 December 2013.

National Education Inspectorate (Jamaica) (2013), Chief inspector's report.

http://www.moe.gov.jm/sites/default/files/Chief%20Inspectors%20Report%20May‐26‐

2013.pdf Accessed on 16 December 2013.

Ontario College of Teachers (2007), Standards of Professional Practice.

http://www.oct.ca Accessed on 15 December 2013.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2008), Private school inspection reports.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/privsch/index.html Accessed on 14

December 2013.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Synergies for

better learning. (Slide show) http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/OECDEDU/oecd‐review‐

on‐evaluation‐and‐assessment‐frameworks‐for‐improving‐school‐outcomes‐synthesis‐

report‐what‐have‐we‐learned/2 Accessed on 16 December 2013.

Republic of South Africa (2001), The national policy on whole school evaluation.

Government gazette 433.

http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6KdRAj%2BNT5A%3D&tabid=390&mi

d=1125 Accessed on 14 December 2013.

Singapore Ministry of Education. http://www.moe.gov.sg/ Accessed on 14 December

DRAFT


December 2013 22

2013.

United Nations Education Scientific Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001800/180083e.pdf Accessed on 14 December

2013.

DRAFT

ContactRoom No. 308 - 313, Central Institute of Educational Technology (CIET), NCERT, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi -110016 INDIA

+91 11 26569925 | [email protected]

�e RMSA Technical Cooperation Agency is funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID)

ContactRoom No. 308 - 313, Central Institute of Educational Technology (CIET), NCERT, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi -110016 INDIA

+91 11 26569925 | [email protected] | www.rmsaindia.org

�e RMSA Technical Cooperation Agency is funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID)

Documents

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: INTERNATIONAL PRACTICESrmsaindia.gov.in/administrator/components/com_pdf/pdf/4a0ff... · School Performance Management: International Practices